If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Latest public figure to speak out against minority rights? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid   (newsmax.com) divider line 233
    More: Obvious, minority rights, Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Party leaders of the United States Senate, filibusters, Newsmax  
•       •       •

3722 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2012 at 6:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-07 05:25:53 PM
What you did there...
 
2012-06-07 05:41:58 PM
Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.

/Plus ca change....
 
2012-06-07 06:19:51 PM

vernonFL: Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.

/Plus ca change....


Oh, you mean that having set the precedent, the Republicans will now fall victim to their own tactics? Or more likely, having filibustered everything to hell, they will pull the ladder up behind them to prevent the Democrats from doing the same thing?
 
2012-06-07 06:22:22 PM
Jesus christ...

this wouldn't be an issue if YOU DIDNT TRY TO farkING FILIBUSTER EVERY SINGLE farkING THING
 
2012-06-07 06:25:39 PM

vernonFL: Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.

/Plus ca change....


So you're saying the Democrats will get rid of the filibuster, then use it on Republicans? What?
 
2012-06-07 06:29:26 PM
Regardless of who wins control of the Senate, its time to end the filibuster rule. It was fine when the senate was made up of statesmen with a bit of class. But these days, its completely useless.
 
2012-06-07 06:29:48 PM

Mentat: vernonFL: Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.

/Plus ca change....

Oh, you mean that having set the precedent, the Republicans will now fall victim to their own tactics? Or more likely, having filibustered everything to hell, they will pull the ladder up behind them to prevent the Democrats from doing the same thing?


The sad thing is the Democrats don't have the spine to do it. Normally when one party stonewalls everything and prevents congress from do anything, they get voted out.
 
2012-06-07 06:30:37 PM
America (by which I mean the American people) is in big trouble.
 
2012-06-07 06:31:36 PM

farkityfarker: America (by which I mean the American people) is in big trouble.


a-yup. We're entirely owned by a handful of wealthy people. We're farked.
 
2012-06-07 06:31:50 PM
Dumb statement by Reid- if the Republicans take control this Fall, they will use this statement to justify killing the filibuster. Either way, Republicans were going to do it anyway, but now they will call Democrats hypocrites and Joe Six-Pack will be all like "both sides do it."

I'd really like to play poker with Harry.
 
2012-06-07 06:32:39 PM
I don't mind the traditional filibuster, ala Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This new-fangled filibuster has got to go.
 
2012-06-07 06:33:43 PM
Ooh, NewsMax, haven't had this flavor of derp in a while.
 
2012-06-07 06:33:56 PM
Sneaky subster. +1
 
2012-06-07 06:34:25 PM
A politician ranting about the opposing party? Well, stop the presses.
 
2012-06-07 06:38:06 PM

ShawnDoc: Regardless of who wins control of the Senate, its time to end the filibuster rule. It was fine when the senate was made up of statesmen with a bit of class. But these days, its completely useless.


Not end it, modify it. It still serves a useful purpose in slowing things down and allowing debate, but it should not be used to completely shut down the government.
 
2012-06-07 06:39:28 PM
Democrats and their War on the Constitution. Sigh.

(Is the filibuster in the Constitution? Somebody google that, please)
 
2012-06-07 06:39:46 PM

LockeOak: Ooh, NewsMax, haven't had this flavor of derp in a while.


Floor humper laughs at you.
 
2012-06-07 06:41:00 PM

vernonFL: Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.


As if that never happened before.
 
2012-06-07 06:41:05 PM

Cletus C.: Democrats and their War on the Constitution. Sigh.

(Is the filibuster in the Constitution? Somebody google that, please)


Do not bow to your google overlords!
 
2012-06-07 06:41:17 PM
I think it'd be funny to see the GOP gain control of the senate. They'll flip out and destroy the current rules the first time the democrats even threaten to filibuster.

Then, in 4/6/8 years when the democrats are in control, they'll whine loud enough to be heard from space about how it just isn't fair.
 
2012-06-07 06:42:22 PM

Cletus C.: Democrats and their War on the Constitution. Sigh.


I'm pretty sure the Constitution declares that the houses of congress get to set their own rules. And, from the looks of it, Harry Reid is declaring just that...a change to their rules.
 
2012-06-07 06:43:57 PM
Ironic... a democrat talking about "minority rights" and ending the filibuster lol

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd(D) completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land."
History of the Filibuster
http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm
 
2012-06-07 06:46:55 PM
Republicans have been able to frustrate Democrats' majority in the Senate with use of the filibuster, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that will change if Democrats retain control of the Senate and President Barack Obama is re-elected in November.

Cool. Now I want to know what they plan to do with the filibuster if the GOP takes the Senate and/or Romney wins.

/goose, gander, sauce, etc.
 
2012-06-07 06:47:39 PM

FrailChild: Ironic... a democrat talking about "minority rights" and ending the filibuster lol

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd(D) completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land."
History of the Filibuster
http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm


Yup, nothing's changed in 48 years.
 
2012-06-07 06:48:42 PM

Job Creator: Dumb statement by Reid- if the Republicans take control this Fall, they will use this statement to justify killing the filibuster. Either way, Republicans were going to do it anyway, but now they will call Democrats hypocrites and Joe Six-Pack will be all like "both sides do it."

I'd really like to play poker with Harry.


I'd really like to play boxing with Harry.
 
2012-06-07 06:49:22 PM

FrailChild: vernonFL: Sigh. Watch what happens when Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and its the Democrats who filibuster everything.

As if that never happened before.


Actually, no, this level of purely partisan obstructionism has NEVER happened before.
 
2012-06-07 06:51:46 PM
the farm bill shouldn't exist.
 
2012-06-07 06:52:00 PM
Most United States senators are mentally ill.
 
2012-06-07 06:52:41 PM
Hey the only people who are victims are the corporations.
 
2012-06-07 06:54:05 PM
This is yet another example of the Dems saying they will do something as soon as it's clear that they won't have the power to do so. Actually, this is worse than usual. In this case, it will just encourage the R's to do this very thing.

This would have been helpful in January of 2009, you useless tool. Go back to boxing.
 
2012-06-07 06:54:29 PM
I can spell filibuster; O B S T R U C T I O N I S T. Filibuster.
 
2012-06-07 06:54:58 PM

FrailChild: Ironic... a democrat talking about "minority rights" and ending the filibuster lol

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd(D) completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land."
History of the Filibuster
http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm


Do you have a comparable anecdote to use for evidence? Filibustering for civil rights and doing it to shut down govt in a selfish act aren't quite the same.
 
2012-06-07 06:57:28 PM

Job Creator: Dumb statement by Reid- if the Republicans take control this Fall, they will use this statement to justify killing the filibuster. Either way, Republicans were going to do it anyway, but now they will call Democrats hypocrites and Joe Six-Pack will be all like "both sides do it."

I'd really like to play poker with Harry.


I promise you the Republicans will not eliminate the filibuster. It's one of many institutional factors which gives the right power to disproportionate to its numbers. The Republicans know very well that in the long run, a responsive government will hurt them more than the current unresponsive government.
 
2012-06-07 07:01:09 PM

rudemix: filibustering for civil rights and doing it to shut down govt in a selfish act aren't quite the same.


Are you so removed from reality that you don't realize Byrd was filibustering against civil rights?

Byrd joined with other Southern and border-state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[27] personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours, a move he later said he regretted.[28] Despite an 83-day filibuster in the Senate, both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, and President Johnson signed the bill into law.[29] Byrd also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 2005, Byrd told The Washington Post that his membership in the Baptist church led to a change in his views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Filibuster_of_the_Civil_Righ t s_Act_of_1964
 
2012-06-07 07:01:19 PM

rudemix: FrailChild: Ironic... a democrat talking about "minority rights" and ending the filibuster lol

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd(D) completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land."
History of the Filibuster
http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm

Do you have a comparable anecdote to use for evidence? Filibustering for civil rights and doing it to shut down govt in a selfish act aren't quite the same.


"Democrats were racist half a century ago, therefore your argument is invalid"
 
2012-06-07 07:04:13 PM
Whenever the southern strategy dixiecrats are brought up in an argument, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
2012-06-07 07:04:33 PM
Is he farking stupid?

It's already even money we will lose control of the Senate and depend on these same minority rights to stop right-wing craziness.
Ignoring the fact it's not fascism when we do it, I can't believe he would even give the Republicans the idea that this is okay.
 
2012-06-07 07:06:19 PM

Descartes: depend on these same minority rights to stop right-wing craziness.


Because the democrats totally wouldn't go along with the GOP on ridiculous ideas because they are spineless.
 
2012-06-07 07:06:57 PM
So he came out against illegal aliens? Good.
 
2012-06-07 07:07:01 PM

FrailChild: Ironic... a democrat talking about "minority rights" and ending the filibuster lol

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd(D) completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land."
History of the Filibuster
http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm


Seriously? Byrd?

That's just sad.
 
2012-06-07 07:08:07 PM

Evil High Priest: This is yet another example of the Dems saying they will do something as soon as it's clear that they won't have the power to do so. Actually, this is worse than usual. In this case, it will just encourage the R's to do this very thing.

This would have been helpful in January of 2009, you useless tool. Go back to boxing.


Harry didn't need it in 2009 because the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority. Why they weren't able to pass all their thwarted bills back then before the GOP took over a bunch of seats is something you should be asking him.
 
2012-06-07 07:08:33 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Seriously? Byrd?

That's just sad.


I know. If I were a democrat I'd be embarrassed of him too.
 
2012-06-07 07:11:50 PM

jjorsett: because the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority.


For all of 14 weeks including their winter recess.

Boy, they really had tons of time to push stuff through what with all the numerous avenues available to slow legislation down in committee and on the floor outside of a simple cloture vote.
 
2012-06-07 07:12:03 PM

LockeOak: Ooh, NewsMax, haven't had this flavor of derp in a while.


At least we get a break from Breitbart.
 
2012-06-07 07:13:09 PM
haha. Byrd. Yeah, that's relevant.
 
2012-06-07 07:14:59 PM

FrailChild: Lionel Mandrake: Seriously? Byrd?

That's just sad.

I know. If I were a democrat I'd be embarrassed of him too.


Keep deflecting. Maybe the RNC will give you a bonus!
 
2012-06-07 07:18:02 PM

Soup4Bonnie: haha. Byrd. Yeah, that's relevant.


Longest filibuster in US History, from a democrat against the Civil Rights Act. No this is not a unique tactic to Republicans and it's stupid to be blind to it.

1. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond

The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records.

Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way.

Thurmond was not the only lawmaker to filibuster on the issue, however. According to Senate records, teams of senators consumed 57 days filibustering between March 26 and June 19, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/tp/Five-Longest-Filibusters. h tm
 
2012-06-07 07:19:26 PM
Give 'em hell, Harry

/the squealing will be exquisite
 
2012-06-07 07:19:53 PM

FrailChild: Soup4Bonnie: haha. Byrd. Yeah, that's relevant.

Longest filibuster in US History, from a democrat against the Civil Rights Act. No this is not a unique tactic to Republicans and it's stupid to be blind to it.

1. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond

The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records.

Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way.

Thurmond was not the only lawmaker to filibuster on the issue, however. According to Senate records, teams of senators consumed 57 days filibustering between March 26 and June 19, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/tp/Five-Longest-Filibusters. h tm


So a long filibuster on a single issue half a century ago is comparable to filibustering, or otherwise obstructing, EVERYTHING?
 
2012-06-07 07:20:07 PM

ShawnDoc: Regardless of who wins control of the Senate, its time to end the filibuster rule. It was fine when the senate was made up of statesmen with a bit of class. But these days, its completely useless.


^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

Whatever the composition of the Senate at any given time, it is a violation of democratic principles to not allow a piece of legislation to go to an up or down vote.

Good luck getting whichever party is in the minority to vote for a rules change though.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report